Forum Topic

Air Quality Bid

Why was this rejected, does anyone know? I dont have bad asthma but i am wheezing loads at the momentI just don't understand how they can't give money to a council that has been in the national press for having the worse polluted roads in the country?And, maybe i am only seeing what i want to see, but it seems that its all Labour councils that have been awarded the money? Are they playing political games with our health?

Emarisa Battoia ● 2805d9 Comments

The London boroughs of Bromley, Camden, Croydon, Enfield, Hounslow, Lambeth, Newham, Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Redbridge and the City of London Corporation have all been successful. Bromley - Tory controlCamden - LabourCroydon - LabourEnfield - LabourHounslow - Labour Lambeth - LabourNewham - LabourSouthwark - LabourTower Hamlets - LabourRedbridge - LabourCity of London - IndependentPolitical bias?  On the face of it maybe but Wandsworth, Westminster and Ken & Chelsea are the only inner London boroughs not Labour. Inner London is where the air quality is worst, especially east of the centre. So logically funds go in that direction. It’s still very disappointing for Putney. Maybe the improvements of recent years have counted against us?

Jonathan Callaway ● 2805d

I suspect that Wandsworth put ina poor quality bid.  Apart from the successes in reducing NOx on Putney High Street,the council has done virtually nothing to enabling walking and cycling in the borough. It hasn’t really involved residents and local groups, and is ignoring good practice elsewhere in alondon.  Lots of talk, but no real action. So could be political bias by the mayor’s office or it could be that the 3 Tory boroughs are clininging to out of date transport policies built around motor traffic. It’s a shame, particularly as what is good for us and our health is also good for local business.

Ruth Pates ● 2805d

Details of the Putney bid is here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/545629/response/1298785/attach/html/3/PUTNEY%20LIVEABLE%20NEIGHBOURHOOD%20BID%202018.docx%20Redacted.pdf.htmlThe schemes which got approval were a lot more ambitious and impactful, creating new public spaces, improving cycle & pedestrian infrastructure so there is a genuine alternative to using cars, etc: https://tfl-newsroom.prgloo.com/news/tfl-press-release-eleven-new-projects-to-receive-gbp-50-million-investment-to-create-healthy-streets-across-london?fbclid=IwAR24g0wFq6QfFQdXbCoBJWRNUw1QGLxFZJ46jX9-VG23TF0ddLMLwXjkR9MThe Putney proposal seems to spend a lot on planting green walls and parklets next to busy roads to make them look nicer instead of really tackling the root cause of too much traffic in the first place. There's also vague commitments like 'investigation into school streets' instead of concrete proposals such as closing roads like Charlwood to traffic at school open & close times. The idea of linking the thames path cycle route under putney bridge is a good one but the rest of the proposals were very weak in comparison to the winning bids IMHO.

William Smith ● 2805d

Understand your point. I'll have a proper look later today. The thing is with the best will in the world it would be hard to have ambitious plans for a road which basically links the A3 to central and West London...... And would that not be something TFL has responsibility for anyway. I mean, they are meant to be 'keeping London moving' aren't they?

Emarisa Battoia ● 2805d

Emarisa, my thoughts exactly.  There is really nothing that could be done to persuade a government to reduce the traffic up the High St.  To do so would gridlock large parts of London.Even though I wish it was not true.

Bunny Payne ● 2804d

I haven't looked at the Wandsworth bid but I heard about a couple of other boroughs that didn't get funding (Richmond and Hammersmith and Fulham) and they got feedback that their bids simply weren't ambitious and specific compared to the boroughs that did get funding.So it was about "looking", or "investigating" or advocating  projects that just prettied things up rather than specific proposals that clearly addressed the objectives in the Liveable Neighbourhoods bid document.

Michael Robinson ● 2803d

Bunny and Emarisa,This could be done in stages.  New York City Times Square and London's own city at the Bank/Monument roundabout demonstrate the benefits of putting people/pedestrians first, and as far as I am away have not had major gridlock implications elsewhere.  As a first step, the High Street could be made better for pedestrians without any significant impact on the volume of motor traffic.  David Irwin put a proposal forward several years ago that involved widening the pavements, and slowing traffic down officially to 10-20 mph (which it is at most of the day anyway), more crossing points, and similar.  This eventually had an influence on council planning (although nothing implemented yet - we live in hope.....one day.....).  Improving access to PHS for cycles and pedestrians would take away at least some of the local traffic, and other through traffic might under those circumstances choose a different route.

Ruth Pates ● 2803d

RuthThe points made were that the Putney bid was not adventurous enough, so if this is true doing it in stages as you suggest will not be adventurous either?

Emarisa Battoia ● 2803d

Yes, good point. I just wanted to challenge the view that nothing can be done about London traffic congestion and that nothing can be done about high street traffic in particular. I  am just keen for Wandsworth to take action, but for some reason the council seems afraid to do anything at all. They could have put in a serious bid for PHS with phased implementation. Disappointing to miss out on the bid, but there is plenty the council could do outside of the bid to to make a start. Report today from Public Health England on actions local authorities can take. Would be great if Wandsworth would choose one and actually do it.

Ruth Pates ● 2802d